Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1596812. ; Size: 1868K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Neither race nor class alone can predict educational achievement. However, in America, disparities in funding for education may be an impediment to educational opportunity for disadvantaged youth. At the crux of the Nation's achievement gap among minority children is the question of the how states should allocate federal education funds, and how local school districts should use those monies. Educators have long recognized that the socioeconomic circumstances of many public school students present great educational challenges. Since 1965, Congress has authorized the use of federal funds by local school districts to remedy the achievement gap.

Part I of this Article discusses the background and history of Title I, and reviews the debates surrounding the statute's enactment. The Section ends by arguing that problems with the statute's contorted history and weak initial implementation have contributed greatly to ineffective enforcement and inequitable funding outcomes. Part II discusses the appropriate role for federal government in local school funding. It describes federal funding for education as cooperative federalism, and argues that the federalist assertion that education is solely a local issue is mistaken by analyzing the characteristics and types of programs and funding historically and currently available for state and local education programs. Part II concludes by defining the role that federal government should play in eradicating improper funding allocations at the state and local level. Comparability is the most critical issue to examine if funding inequities are to be eradicated. Part III argues that there should be changes in both the ideology and the legislative schemes that encompass Title I. Specifically, Title I should be more “child-centered” and the funding formula should be keyed to the "Title I child."